Indian Govt. Censored Criticism of Union Ministers, Claims X

Calls SAHYOG Portal a Censorship Tool

March 30, 2025

The central government issued 66 takedown notices to X (formerly Twitter) over the past year, with one-third targeting content critical of Union Ministers and government agencies, according to The Hindu, whose report is based on an analysis of court documents from a lawsuit filed by X challenging the government’s actions in the Karnataka High Court.

The notices, sent through the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), included content related to ministers, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah and Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, says the newspaper. The flagged posts ranged from AI-generated images and satirical videos to fact-checked content that questions government policies.

The takedown notices are facilitated through the SAHYOG portal, a tool that allows law enforcement agencies to demand the removal of content under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

This provision enables platforms to avoid liability for user-generated content if they comply with government requests. However, X has argued in court that the SAHYOG portal operates as a “censorship portal,” circumventing legal safeguards against overreach.

X has contended that Section 79(3)(b) does not empower the government to issue content-blocking orders while sidestepping the safeguards outlined in Section 69A, its accompanying rules, and the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Shreya Singhal case, as reported by The Time of India.

On the other hand, the central government has argued that Section 69A explicitly allows it to issue blocking orders under specific circumstances, ensuring multiple safeguards are followed.

The inclusion of harmless or fact-checked posts among the flagged content suggests that the government’s actions may extend beyond targeting genuinely harmful material, potentially aiming to police dissent or suppress criticism.

Issues like deepfakes, child sexual abuse material and incitement to violence are serious threats that require decisive action. However, when content moderation begins to target political criticism, satire or dissent, it risks undermining democracy and the freedom of speech and expression.

The targeting of posts critical of government leaders risks setting a dangerous precedent, where legitimate criticism is silenced under the pretext of combating misinformation or derogatory content. This could suppress public discourse, deterring citizens, journalists and activists from questioning or holding leaders accountable.

While the government insists that these notices are not outright blocking orders, their very existence pressures platforms to comply or risk liability. The subtle coercion can bypass the judicial scrutiny that is typically required for content takedowns, leaving room for potential abuse of power.

Social media platforms must also be held accountable for their role in amplifying misinformation and harmful content. However, they have reportedly engaged in selective compliance, with X resisting certain takedown requests while WhatsApp has cooperated in specific cases, such as sharing metadata in terrorism-related matters.

There’s a need to establish independent oversight mechanisms to review and adjudicate government takedown requests, ensuring that such efforts are based on clear and legitimate grounds. Further, platforms should be required to publish detailed transparency reports, allowing the public to understand the scale and nature of government intervention in online spaces.